Jayray,

Bloch is doing due diligence on very intricate work that requires extreme attention to detail to make sure his decision has basis and is validated. This kind of work has a sliding scale to completion especially with newly introduced data.

There's a big difference between what he is doing and simply lying.

 

Failing to fulfill a promise is not lying. Saying you intend to do something and then not doing it is not lying either (unless you never intended to do it in the first place)

You've clearly not married. Nor a parent.

 

[QUOTE=norskman2;998240

You've clearly not married. Nor a parent. [/QUOTE]

Or gone thru a divorce

 

Are you norwegian?

 

Nevemind. ...

 

amen!! ,,,,,,

 

I don't want to be a distraction for what is really going on here. I know it is not the arbitrator's fault. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the Pinnacle merger committee. These guys are trying to pull a quick one over on all of us. Doctoring their seniority list to give their group an unfair and unjustified gain, using the Delta gate swap to try to sway the arbitrator to their side at the last minute. I know it is not the Pinnacle pilot group's fault but these guys are giving you a bad name.

 

No. The list comes from Corp. The issue of class dates/seniority date was prediscussed. The current "list" from Corp already complies with the JCBA LOA 2.V in changing the class/DOH dates. That's where others have an issue. It simply gives parity to all 3 groups. The MOU pilots are on own our list because they are currently flying our planes. Anything other than our list is a scope violation. The "dates" of a few that were accused were the same guys that were XJ guys. MOU pilots have been pawns from the beginning. Other areas are on the shoulders of Inc. Lists were asked for and all 3 groups went to the planning dept for the updated list(s) and sent to Bloch. Lists from 7/1 and prior never changed, they were certified correct by the individual pilot groups, merger committes, and all 3 merger committees when this party started. This is politics at the top. By throwing others in front of a bus you can make yourself look good by making others look worse. Bloch isn't playing games and is very smart. The facts are in his hands. The end result is in his hands. Our only involvement as line pilots is to bid and do our job. The merger committees submitted final rebuttals April 15. At this point errors were fixed, but disputes over other factors were due April 15. All sides agreed that new evidence would not be added after. That would include Saab reductions- our side hasn't brought that up as evidence. The 9E merger Cmte has played by the rules and is being lambasted for fighting over "parity". Take it as you may, but there are multiple sides to a story. Everyone makes errors, how they are handled determines the outcome.

 

It does not matter if the base list comes from Corp. The ALPA Merger policy clearly states that it is the responsibility of each Merger Committee to verify each and every pilot on the list for accuracy, not just take it on the word of Corp that it is accurate. If Corp handed me another seniority list I would reference it to the previous one I was sent and ask why there are certain discrepancies from the previous.

Also, I understand that why you reference the JCBA. The company finally changed that for their internal records. However, we go back to the ALPA Merger policy and what is defines as DOH. It does not matter what the JCBA says, this SLI follows the guidelines set forth by the ALPA Merger Policy and the defined terms in that policy.

I understand what you mean with "parity" but that is independant to what the policy dictates what DOH is. Nowhere in the policy does it state that "parity shall be permitted when their is any type difference in data." It clearly states what the definition is.

The main issue should be what is more important; parity or following the ALPA Merger policy to the letter? Im not pushing for one over the other, but that is the real question here.

 

I figured. See my "Mesaba dispute?" thread, page 1 and page 4. We bent over backwards to do something no other airline had done before in this MOU with granting longevity. The fact Bloch wants the MOU shows that this MOU is the problem now, or another words, the problem are the XJ furloughee pilots on Pinnacle's list. Arbitrators have a pretty solid view on furloughees and where they belong on the list. Just see previous arbitration awards for hints. We have shot ourselves in the foot, thinking we were doing "good" by this MOU, and now this MOU is being used against us. It's putting up in the air the question of Mesaba furloughees, their DOHs, their longevity credit, and it's adding to the continual delay of getting our seniority list out. Word I'm hearing is that Pinnacle badly wants another vacancy out, but was waiting for a list to come out to do it then. Now, who knows how long this debate will last? This week? Next week? A month? More? One could argue our vacancies have been put on hold as long as the ISL is put on hold. All the more reason to blame that MOU.